Sarah - The UndefeatedFollow

Relevant article is relevant.

The LA Times is such a conservative leaning paper though, so I'm not sure how much weight anyone should put on this.

You might want to check out the author rather than just the masthead. You know (well, YOU didn't...), the guy who used to be Laura Bush's press secretary and Deputy Communications Manager for George W. Bush.

But, yeah... nice job!

I have no clue what wiki scuffle you're talking about.

I don't spend my time scouring political blogs in order to discover what I should care about.

So you had no idea what you were arguing against, but saw that it involved Palin in some way so you had to feverishly defend her?

Yes, we've already established you didn't know what you were arguing about. Maybe two posts above my post that you jumped at feverishly. Yip.

Edited, Jun 17th 2011 8:42pm by lolgaxe

The one mentioned in this thread; Because that's what we were talking about before you lunged in; The issue at hand is the fanbase being rabid little chihuahuas; there's a link in this very thread*.

You must be pissed I won't let you change the argument so you can save face.

* This one is a trap, by the way. The link does exist on the first page, but there's something about the article in the link that I'm pretty sure you're going to latch on about to disprove something I said earlier on this page. I have the counter ready. Just being transparent here.

Yip yip yip!

Edited, Jun 17th 2011 9:11pm by lolgaxe

He doesn't get his news from anywhere!

Ah. I missed this the first time. Most likely because I wasn't paying attention to what Varus was saying, much less what anyone responding to him was saying. I kinda came into this when we were near the bottom of page 1 and skimmed.


Um... Media spin on this a bit maybe? From the timeline in the edit discussion page, the first attempts to make changes were to remove previous sourced sections of the existing wiki page. Interestingly enough, at least the one example given seems to be a paragraph which supports the Palin statement, not one that refutes it. That's not to say that people from both sides didn't try to make changes to make Palin look better or worse depending on their own view, but I don't see anything to show that it was all Palin supporters trying to re-write history.


What's really funny is that most of the proposed edits argued over don't seem to have anything to do with Palin at all, at least not by those proposing them. It looks like the normal amount of Wiki-argument which occurs whenever a subject suddenly pops into the publics attention and a bunch of people suddenly remember that they'd been meaning to update the page on that subject, and the normal amount of debate over what is reliable and what isn't flow freely.

It looks more to me like one guy seems to keep saying it's "Palin supporters" attempting to make edits, but doesn't seem to have any rational explanation for why he makes that assumption. Dunno. Looks like an attempt to make hay where none exists. Who are these supposed Palin supporters editing wiki pages? Like I said, the first batch of edits looked more like attempts to remove sections which corroborated Palin's story (about him being captured and warning the British not to go to Lexington because the Colonists were ready for them).


That's really what's got you all atwitter? Lol!

Edited, Jun 17th 2011 6:40pm by gbaji

Just to add: Palin didn't say anything about Revere being captured, so that section being removed would actually be for Palin, not against. ("He warned the British that they wouldn't be taking our arms, by ringing those bells and by riding his horse through town") Like I said, what she probably did was smooshed the two events together (him being captured by the British and him riding through towns warning Colonists) because she was tired of walking all day and having questions thrown at her. To me it looks like an innocent slip, honestly. Not exactly wrong, but still not right either. A gaffe that could EASILY be brushed off as fatigue. The fanbase, however, got the Revere paged locked, which goes to show just how ravenous they were to protect their queen.

To wit: Her fanbase makes her look bad.

Edited, Jun 17th 2011 9:58pm by lolgaxe

She didn't say he wasn't captured. Unless you buy that she thought that Revere was riding through loyalist towns warning of a colonial uprising, it's reasonable to assume that she knew he'd been captured and that's how he "warned the British". Um... But the first edits on June 5th (which removed that reference btw and a whole bunch of other stuff for being not properly cited) were made by this user. He's not a conservative. He self identifies as a Democrat.

I can't say that his edits were politically motivated, but it's certain that edits were made by people who were *not* Palin supporters and not in response to Palin supporters making edits first. Get it? It's a media fabrication which you bought because you didn't bother (or want) to spend any time learning the truth.

Nearly 12 hours later on June 5th comes the first edit one might possibly think is from a Palin supporter. It's by this guy. Now maybe he's lying about his support/love/whatever for Palin. But I've looked at the edit delta. He didn't place any credence on Palin's account. He simply made reference to her claim in the section on Revere's ride. And honestly did so in a fairly condescending manner:



This is followed by a link to the LA Times article about this. Not sure why he felt like putting that information in that section. Maybe he's a flake? But this is hardly a horde of Palin supporters descending on the wiki to re-write history.

His second attempt to insert a Palin reference into the Revere page is particularly "not-supportive":



Yeah. Ringing endorsement of Palin's account there. This is precisely what I would expect a rabid Palin supporter to write if given access to edit the wiki account of Revere's ride. Um... no, it's really not.




Lol. Except for a left leaning media looking for any excuse to play on the "Palin is dumb!" angle. Seriously? What do you think everyone's doing here? Seems like folks are trying to find anything at all to hang around her neck.



Wikipedia pages get locked all the time. Mostly because the editors have egos the size of freaking Texas. Look through the edit history. It's not about Palin supporters. It's about one guy (the first guy I linked, who is *not* a Palin supporter), hearing there was a story about the history of Revere's ride going around, and deciding to make some edits. Other people also decide to do edits, likely for the same reason. He then rampages through, arguing with everyone who makes any sort of edit he doesn't like and calling them Palin supporters, no matter how unrelated their edits are.

The first thing you also have to realize is that the Revere wiki page was already locked prior to Palin making her statement. It was restricted to accepted editors only. This was not random Palin supporters showing up and changing stuff, and if you read through the edit history, it's obvious that it's mostly about 3 or 4 people arguing primarily over format, citation rules, and sentence structure. Um... So pretty much a normal wikipedia argument. Happens all the time. The media just doesn't normally comment on it.


The page got edited so much, not because anyone was trying to re-write history, but because people think to make wiki edits on a subject when said subject comes up for some reason. Like say when a politician says something about it, and the media makes a big deal about it. There's literally nothing to see there.



No. One or two liberals made a big deal out of nothing in order to make it appear as though her fanbase did something they didn't, so that they could say that this made her look bad. And you, and a ton of other people ate it up as fact without bothering to check. Almost certainly because the false information fit with your pre-conceived perception.

Edited, Jun 17th 2011 8:03pm by gbaji

Nope, actually said it could be simple fatigue. Two or three times, actually. You go ahead and hinge your entire defense of the royalty on that, though. She must be infallible!

Grrr.

No, the point has always been her fanbase is rabid, which thus far you've been more than happy to prove.

Yes, I mentioned that. Obviously, and I haven't said I thought she didn't know. In fact (not your type of facts, the kind that actually has evidence) I've been operating under the assumption she did know, but had just jumbled two Paul Revere related events together accidentally. Kind of my point, a stressful impromptu question and answer session coupled with a busy schedule. Could have unjumbled the two events at the very least. Or admitted to said jumbling.

Honestly, if I'm tired and had been reading Batman all day, and someone asks me who Spider-Man's identity was and I say Bruce Wayne, that doesn't necessarily mean I think it was Spider-Man is Bruce Wayne. It just means I was tired and my thoughts were elsewhere.

Except in my scenario the answer is absolutely wrong and not a jumble of two events.

Says the guy that jumped in to defend Palin full steam when the conversation wasn't even about her and had to be led by the nose to the real conversation, then wrote a novel defending Palin when its still about ravenous chihuahua fanboys.

Edited, Jun 17th 2011 11:58pm by lolgaxe